Hi Suvayu, Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:41, suvayu ali <fatkasuv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yup, your analysis was spot on. :) Changing the let to let* and >> reevaluating the defun fixed the issue. >> >> I hadn't grasped this subtlety about let*, dependencies on preceding >> bindings hidden behind function calls! > > I am attaching the changes as a patch. Let me know if it is okay. Applied, thanks to you and Nick! -- Bastien
